Interpret this for me:
Jambo is exploring the hypothesis that Africans have had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds in humans, which may provide some defense against COVID-19.Science | AAAS
www.sciencemag.org
e2a: The emboldened words, not the data.
Coronaviridae are zoonotic. Like the papers cited, the literature differentiates human/avian/feline/chiroptine/etc coronaviruses and their varying effects across species.
I highlighted the salient words.
Would that not be sufficiently-well conveyed if you left 'in humans' out of the sentence?I interpret that as humans in Africa had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds.
Coronaviruses affect other animals as well as humans?
Would that not be sufficiently-well conveyed if you left 'in humans' out of the sentence?
Good question. Its purely anecdotal when I look at the UK who is known as the sick man of Europe anyway. Then the US and Central and a lot of South America have significant obesity problem and the problems associated with obesity (type 2 diabetes being a key one). Obviously a lot of other factors involved in each country but the concept of being in good health before contracting the virus will give the best chance of survival has never really been in doubt as far as I can see.
Coronaviridae are zoonotic. Like the papers cited, the literature differentiates human/avian/feline/chiroptine/etc coronaviruses and their varying effects across species.
I'm familiar with academic language having published original research papers in high impact neuroscience and psychophysics journals, and having worked in science communication for a decade.I take your point Mation, but I read it exactly as elbows has described.
Academic language is different to every day language, and can seem clumsy or overly specific.
Like papers that talk about “mortality and morbidity”. And the attention that was given to the word “outcome” earlier, which means a specific thing in medical terms, which is different to how it is used in lay terms.
But yes, that article could have - or maybe should have - phrased it differently; and the question speaks to deep and problematic issues.
Thank you. And yes, you did say you took my point, so that part of my reply was unfair to you. I mentally amalgamated everyone's responses. Apologies.I’d forgotten that you have scientific and academic experience and I apologise for that, and also for the resulting patronising tone in my post.
I did say that I take your point and I understand the issue. I fully agree that the language in the article is problematic. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.
I gave it the benefit of the doubt because (I thought) I had interpreted it entirely and only in the context of academic language. However in light of the ongoing discussion I am now examining my own position and thought processes, and I’m grateful to you for pursuing and clarifying the issue.
Nonsense. It's never acceptable. I certainly never mentioned the word humans in my papers.Ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with using the word humans when discussing diseases in humans.
This really wasn't meant to be a trap, and it's actually getting pretty upsetting now. The sentence basically says on the one hand Africans and on the other hand humans. It's not that I don't understand how you read it, but there is a bias in the way it was phrased that you (and others) obviously can't see.
Please don't make it worse by assuming that I'm the one who doesn't understand. It's a bias you missed. Examine it. Or don't, but don't patronise me with it.
(Not just you.)
Jambo is exploring the hypothesis that Africans have had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds in humans, which may provide some defense against COVID-19.
It is clear that you can't see it, yes. And since you know what it feels like to see a bias that's invisible to others, why would you not just leave it at, ok I don't see it but maybe I'll think about it? (Not as a post to me, but as a thought to yourself.)I have experienced mental anguish from situations where thinly disguised bias was completely invisible to some people whose refusal to see it caused further despair.
I dont understand how I could possibly see the sentence in question as an example though.
That sentence is in no way differentiating Africans from humans. They are talking about coronaviruses that are perceived to cause no more than colds in humans, including all the humans of Africa. There is no concept of one hand, other hand in that part of the sentence.
The difference that is mentioned in that sentence is the idea that Africans may have had more exposure to such coronaviruses than people in other parts of the world. They experience them as colds, like all humans.
None. Clearly.What additional thought an I going to give it? I am someone who has gone on about other coronaviruses that cause colds in humans myself, and it is not language I would dream of shying away from.
Wow.I spent time considering the sentence and what it actually said and already gave my thoughts on that. And now I feel badly hurt, a feeling which is not going to improve the quality of my output. Now I will attempt to get over it without feeling the need to spew many defensive words.
Jambo is exploring the hypothesis that Europeans have had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds in humans, which may provide some defense against COVID-19.
The honest answer is that I'd probably just have found it funny as a sentence that contrasts humans with Europeans (and would still want to see it re-written).To me, the test would be whether this works equally as well:
The last hypothesis is that a population across Africa has some level of SARS-CoV-2 immunity because of prior exposure to other coronaviruses. As with SARS-COV-2, a spillover of zoonotic coronaviruses into the human population has been recorded several times before, and mounting evidence suggests that other strains closely related to human coronaviruses are circulating within bat populations in Africa and elsewhere.28–32 Although a novel outbreak of coronavirus has not been reported in the region, the continuous contact between bats, livestock, and humans in rural Africa may have resulted in exposure to these emergent coronaviruses and development of humoral cross-reactivity.21 Antibodies that target conserved epitopes across virus families have been identified in humans, as shown for filoviruses where identification of antibodies that cross-neutralize multiple Ebolaviruses resulted in the development of promising pan-Ebolavirus therapeutic antibodies.
The paper isn't written in the same way as the article, and doesn't seem biased, you're right. I wasn't talking about the paper, though. There is a bias in how the article was phrased. And I also have a bias in seeing it, both personally and professionally.Here is the paper that that bit of the article comes from:
Why is There Low Morbidity and Mortality of COVID-19 in Africa? - PMC
Three months since the detection of the first COVID-19 case in Africa, almost all countries of the continent continued to report lower morbidity and mortality than the global trend, including Europe and North America. We reviewed the merits of ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
And the part in question:
Wow at me all you like Mation, you made a mistake and I'm not going to learn much from it.
Other than the pain of false accusations that is, aaaaararrrghhhhhh the pain. It sucks. I'm sorry that the article caused you pain, and that my interpretation of it added to the pain rather than helping it diminish. Now how do I get rid of my pain?
The paper isn't written in the same way as the article, and doesn't seem biased, you're right. I wasn't talking about the paper, though. There is a bias in how the article was phrased. And I also have a bias in seeing it, both personally and professionally.
The honest answer is that I'd probably just have found it funny as a sentence that contrasts humans with Europeans (and would still want to see it re-written).
This isn’t a good look elbows